Lodima Fine Art Paper--Official reports and Member Responses

[Photo Engineer]

I think that you should remember that the people who know how to do this are either disinterested, old or presently trying. So far, Azo has been hard to reproduce for some. I wish them well.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

and my point David, is that we shouldn't criticise large corporations who will not continue to produce items that are not economically viable

I'm not saying anything about Kodak (or did you have another "large corporation" in mind here?), but just that we should encourage Michael and Paula in their efforts to produce a chloride paper on a smaller scale than Kodak could afford to do. Just because Kodak couldn't do it doesn't mean that someone else can't. Fotoimpex and their partners seem very proactive in bringing new papers to the market in the wake of Agfa's departure from that market. Why shouldn't we encourage them? Maybe a small and flexible manufacturer can do things that a big corporation can't. It would be in our interest as traditional photographers if they were to succeed, so why not help them if we can?

Your attitude seems to be rather dismissive, unproductive, and I daresay narcissistic. You seem more caught up in thinking yourself a contrarian in all matters and believing that it makes you look intelligent, than in thinking about how to solve problems worth solving.

 

[Ray Heath]

thank you David

once again nobody has the balls to address contrary issues and opinions, apparently it is easier to label the poster as "troll/dissmissive/unproductive/narcissitic/blah/blah

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think I addressed those questions in my previous post, by providing a reasonably successful example of small-market paper coating. Instead of reading it, you projected onto it your own impression that I was criticizing Kodak and then started talking about "balls." Very productive indeed.

 

[sanking]

An artist should be transparent to his/her materials. In other words, so familiar with them that one works with them without thinking.

Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee are examples of artists who have become totally familiar with a few materials, including Kodak Super-XX film (last produced around 1990) and Kodak AZO developed in Amidol. Having great knowledge of the characteristics of these materials allows them to concentrate on the art of making photographs. As Michael Smith has said, if it is good enough for Edward Weston it is good enough for me.

Although my own working style is different I have a lot of respect for people who know what they are doing, understand their materials, and want to continue working with them. This may involve some self-sacrifice on their part that I personally might not make, but I admire their commitment to their art, and for that they deserve our respect.

Sandy King

 

[mark]

This discussion is going no where. It hasn't gone anywhere in a long time. How about shutting the putrid horse down. It is only causing pointless arguments. Then again I am obviously unwilling to accept that there are counter points. But all the same no matter the species of wood used to beat the horse, it is still still dead.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Sandy has made a good point here. If oil paints vanished, great painters would have to learn their trade anew, or learn to make oil paints.

Just one example, but I think to the point.

PE

 

[Ray Heath]

I think I addressed those questions in my previous post, by providing a reasonably successful example of small-market paper coating. Instead of reading it, you projected onto it your own impression that I was criticizing Kodak and then started talking about "balls." Very productive indeed.

hang on David did you even read my previous, i didn't mention Kodak, i had in mind a previous post by doughowk, "Instead of allowing corporations to restrict how we express ourselves photographically ..."

you need to consider what you project, for some time you've had a low opinion of me and anything i write, rather than attack me personally why not address the issues i raise;
"and my point David, is that we shouldn't criticise large corporations who will not continue to produce items that are not economically viable

we should not take the demise of specialist materials as a personal affront

"appropriate to the market", there is not enough of a market for a lot of these materials, if we really want analogue photography to survive we may have to start shrinking the range of materials we use and demand

Azo/Type 55/(insert product name) have gone, surely there are other materials just as good

maybe we should devote ourselves to making our own light sensitive materials

maybe we should not be so "precious" about our work"

does no-one agree, is no-one willingly to make an inlelligent response

 

[Alex Hawley]

An artist should be transparent to his/her materials. In other words, so familiar with them that one works with them without thinking.

I agree Sandy, but that brings about the great dilemma of the current times. I was a totally happy camper printing on Kodak papers, both Azo and Polymax Fine Art. Then of course, they went away. I simply have not been able to quite settle in ever since. I'm not even sure my current choice will be around for working eternity or even the near term. Perhaps the biggest problem is that I now need to go back and print my entire portfolio on the new paper so that there is visual consistency. Right now, its a hodge-podge of Azo, Polymax, Polywarmtone, Kentona, Ilford, ect. Its not like I have a huge portfolio, but reprinting and matting all over again will take a chunk of time and some expense. It sucks, but it seems a necessity.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

From Ray Heath: ”when two highly regarded artists convince themselves, then others, that the only way to express themselves is to be tied to one type of material, technique, genre and/or presentation is, to me, misleading, illformed and artistically restrictive.”

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately as the case may be, I do not have the time to monitor and participate in this forum as I did when the forum started and in years past. But when friends send me emails telling me about things like this thread and the above comment, I need to take a look.

This fellow, Heath, whoever he is, (ah, I looked him up, he is a photographer, although I can understand by looking at his photographs why he is so negative and bitter), hasn't a clue as to what Paula and I do photographically; he hasn't a clue as to the range and variety of materials we use and the subjects we photograph.

Let's talk about materials first. Why print on silver chloride paper? Well, in my opinion the same negative printed on enlarging paper and on silver chloride paper will always look better on silver chloride paper. Always. That is just my opinion of course, but I do believe my opinion is knowledgeable (unlike many opinions stated in these forums). Paula and I have heard so many favorable comments about our print quality from very knowledgeable curators and collectors, and well as from very renowned and well-known photographers. There has been more than one occasion when photographers, far better known than we are, have sat (or stood) virtually spellbound as they looked at our prints. Some of that, but not all, has to do with the print quality, which is a function of the paper, as well as of our skills.

I have stated it this way before. Think of making a print as going to buy ingredients for a meal. Wouldn't most anyone try to buy the finest and best-tasting ingredients they could afford, rather than buying ingredients that would were inferior. So it is the same with photographic paper. Wouldn't you use the finest paper you could afford? To willfully not do so is simply stupid. But perhaps Heath either cannot see the difference between the papers, or perhaps he doesn't care. My interest is in providing the finest experience possible for myself and for the viewer. A more beautiful print (print-quality wise) helps provide a finer experience. I know, today, fine experiences do not count for many people. Too bad for them, is all I can say.

Now I am more than well aware that a fine silver chloride print without a corresponding fine vision is not very interesting and here I will deal with the varieties of subject matter I deal with and the response to my work. Heath thinks Paula and I work in "one kind of genre." Either he hasn't a clue of the range of subjects we photograph or he is blind. On our web site, under our books, both Paula and I have jpgs of some of the work in those books. There are landscapes, photographs made in the urban environment (I was commissioned in the 1980s to photograph four cities--now five with a current commission, with Paula this time, to photograph Chicago), and portraits (see my Deep Springs College book, and there is another portrait book on the way). But Heath doesn't know that. He just wants to attack without taking a real interest. And is the work any good? Everyone will have their own opinion of that, and certainly our photographs are not to everyone's taste (thank god), but I don't think that about 140 museums would have collected our photographs (either from one or from both of us), and have paid real money for them, too (the collected photographs were not collected because we gave them to the institutions, they were purchased), because they they were just examples of fine prints.

I have found that those who keep switching "genres," to use Heath's word, often do so because there is no center there. The photographers are not really there in the work. They are just making pictures. And the work is often clever, but shallow. Shallow is not very rewarding to look at.

Heath claims "restrictive presentation." I'm not sure what that means, but if he thinks that mounting and overmating prints is "restrictive" then he has very funny ideas of presentation. I gather from the quote I used of his that he wants to use different materials, photograph in different ways, and present his photographs in different ways so that he can be thought of as "original." I am fond of quoting Picasso in this regard, "The artist who tries to be original deceives himself. If he creates anything at all it will only be an imitation of what he likes."

Using different materials, for the sake of them being different, and presenting work differently for the sake of being different is simply as shallow as it gets. If the use of different materials and different presentation is a organic function of the work process then it has a chance of not being substantial and deep. Heath has some pictures on his web site in what I can only call "oddball" processes. There seems to be no reason for that other than a desire to be thought of as being "original"--at least to my eyes.

More on materials: In addition to our silver chloride contact prints, Paula and I have had large platinum prints made, and I have recently started working in color for some of my work. The platinum prints came about after we returned from photographing in Iceland. Paula thought some of the photographs would work well as large platinum prints. She thought this because we had seen the incredible platinum prints that the Salto atelier in Belgium had made. And so we have had some platinum prints made.

Color: When in Iceland in 2004 I saw buildings painted in bright and vivid colors and I said that I did not want to return there without color film. So when we returned to Iceland in 2006 I photographed in 8x10 color as well as in 8x20 and 8x10 black and white. And then, last year, when I had the opportunity to photograph inmates at Sheriff Joe's Maricopa County jail, I made the portraits in both black and white and in color. I will print almost 200 black and white portraits and about half that number in color. I worked in color as well as black and white because the tatoos that many of the inmates had seemed to me to demand color. The book of this work will be in color. I am not "hedging my bets." These prints have occurred as a natural function of the work process, not from any thought to be different or to "do something different".

Of course there are many ways of "expressing oneself" (to use Heath's phrase) as an artist, and while Paula and I have recently done other things than just make black and white prints, making those prints is something that will always be primary with me. With Paula, who knows? She has talent in so many more areas than I do.

To say that . . . the only way to express themselves is to be tied to one type of material, technique, genre and/or presentation is, to me, misleading, illformed and artistically restrictive.” shows such an immature understanding of he nature of art making as to boggle the mind. In music, look at Bach and Mozart, to take just two examples of artists who worked with one material, technique, and genre. "Misleading, illformed and artistically restrictive." I don't think so. And Edward Weston wrote that the greatest freedom exists within limitations (of materials, equipment, etc.). It is in the realm of vision that any artist rightfully pushes themselves, not in the realm of "material, technique, genre and/or presentation" except as a natural function of the work process.

I hope those of you who are reading this haven't found it too long-winded and tedious and that there are a few good thoughts in there along with my comments defending myself and Paula from Heath's ludicrous attack. If the attack is so ludicrous, why bother answering it, you may ask? And that is a good question. All I can say is that I just felt like doing so.

Ciao,

Michael A. Smith

 

[Alex Hawley]

Using different materials, for the sake of them being different, and presenting work differently for the sake of being different is simply as shallow as it gets. If the use of different materials and different presentation is a organic function of the work process then it has a chance of not being substantial and deep.

Yep, that's where I'm presently at. My portfolio looks shallow like I'm dancing around different materials just for the material's sake. I know its not totally intentional, but a reviewer doesn't know that. So now I appreciate why its important to be so consistent in one's presentation.

I wonder what Sexton has done? I'm pretty sure he had to cope with the loss of the Kodak papers. Doesn't seem to have slowed him down any.

 

[Michael A. Smith]

I see I made a serious typo

Using different materials, for the sake of them being different, and presenting work differently for the sake of being different is simply as shallow as it gets. If the use of different materials and different presentation is a organic function of the work process then it has a chance of not being substantial and deep.

The word "not" in the last line in the above quote should not have been there.

Should be:

Using different materials, for the sake of them being different, and presenting work differently for the sake of being different is simply as shallow as it gets. If the use of different materials and different presentation is a organic function of the work process then it has a chance of being substantial and deep.


Don't worry about it, Alex. If your vision is consistent, that is the most important thing. If you mean to keep your prints fairly consistent, print color would be more important than other things. As long as the print color is reasonably close, you are okay. The different grades of Azo all printed with slightly different colors. As long as they were reasonably close no one cared.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Ray Heath]

wow, didn't i get up your nose Smith

so i'm not as famous as you Smith, so my work is different to yours Smith, so i'm not afraid to try "oddball processes" unlike you Smith, so i didn't belittle your work Smith, so i don't have to continue to do the same type of derivative work so as to make money from my art unlike you Smith, so i don't give a shit that you are well known and i'm only some nobody Smith, so i'm sorry i had an opinion

actually, the only thing i am sorry about about is that you took it personally, that was not my intent, it was not an attack on you Michael, or Paula, but a comment on the present state of doom and gloom and woe is me i can't get my favourite materials anymore

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Maybe a small and flexible manufacturer can do things that a big corporation can't.

It appears that the "small and flexible manufacturer" involved here is not quite able to what a big corporation can do, but is unwilling to do.

There seems to be a level of technology that a manufacturer needs to be skilled in to produce something like this in a timely fashion.

I wonder if the prices originally quoted for the new paper will still be enough for the project to break even. As oil prices have doubled since this project was announced, it's going to have a whole different set of numbers now to figure costs and pricing. No one probably expected that to happen two+ years ago.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

This fellow, Heath, whoever he is, (ah, I looked him up, he is a photographer, although I can understand by looking at his photographs why he is so negative and bitter),

WOW, Michael, that was very big of you...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It appears that the "small and flexible manufacturer" involved here is not quite able to what a big corporation can do, but is unwilling to do.

There seems to be a level of technology that a manufacturer needs to be skilled in to produce something like this in a timely fashion.

Somehow Kodak managed to do it over 100 years ago, and there were various other chloride papers (Agfa Lupex, Haloid Industro) made subsequently. Maybe M&P just don't have the right manufacturer, or maybe we need to consider what constitutes "timely" to launch a new paper. We waited two years for something as straightforward as Chinese amidol. So if this takes three or four years and is successful, then that's not unreasonable.

That said, I'm very impressed by the way that Fotoimpex and partners have managed to advance their MCC-like product in such a short time, and Wolfgang Moersch has posted samples of a very promising new warmtone paper from the same group in the galleries. It seems like they've got their act together. Maybe if they set out to produce a new Agfa Lupex, they'd bring it to market faster than Lodima.

 

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I think the price of the new Lodima paper "is what it is" If it suits my vision so be it. I will love to use it. I am not an accomplished photographer by any means but I do know one thing. I have made the best prints to date on Azo. If I have a silver chloride paper to print at any time in the future then that will be great. If not, I will then have to make a personal decision as to how to proceed. For me shooting 8x10,11x14 and 8x20 and contact printing I can't wait to use the new Lodima. That is my opinion. I still continue to use my Azo and find more.

Jim

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Maybe M&P just don't have the right manufacturer, or maybe we need to consider what constitutes "timely" to launch a new paper. We waited two years for something as straightforward as Chinese amidol. So if this takes three or four years and is successful, then that's not unreasonable.

David - I agree completely. I'm sure a different manufactuer would have made a big difference. I suspect if Ilford had been offered enough money to take on this type of project, we would have seen the product long ago. At least they have the capabilaty to coat in any season, unlike I believe I've heard about the manufactuer that is working on this project.

You mentioned the Chinese Amidol. I've got a pound of it, and I have not used it. Wasn't its quality inferior to what every one was expecting? Something about a purple precipitate? BTW, didn't Micheal Smith give his approval to the preproduction batch of amidol that was supplied before they made the stuff we all got? I think that shows some of the problems that can be enountered when one hires someone to produce something that they are not accustomed to producing. Quality control in small batches sometimes is lost when things are scaled up.

And lest any one think I'm trying to naysay this project, I hope they see that I'm just trying to point out some of the practicalities involved in these things.

Also, I think there would be a lot less speculation on this entire subject if Michael was a proactive as FotoImpex is in their ventures.

Micheal, care to discuss what tests have been done, what the results were, what tests are still to be performed, and perhaps some sample prints from the tests?

 

[Curt]

All of that and I still don't know when the next Brett Weston portfolio is due out. The mention of Chinese Chemicals gives me a heart ache.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/health/20heparin.html

Wake up people, the products from China should be given absolute scrutiny, if they can't get Heparin right why should they care to make something like a one shot batch of Amidol correctly?

And Michael, I like Paula's photographs and her eye for seeing a lot better than yours. Why are her photographs selling for less than yours? I just don't get that one.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Michael A. Smith,

Do you think you would prefer one of your negatives printed by Ray, or anyone esle, simply because it was printed on a chloride paper, over one you yourself printed on a Chlorobromide or Bromide paper?

Are you perhps overlooking your skill as a photographer and printer?

Where is your Lodima project?
What is taking so long?
Are you trying to do it yourselves, from the paid information you got?

Have you ever disclosed who is working on it?
Or what country is is taking place in?
If not, What is the logic behind the secrecy?
(How do we benefit by not knowing?)

I think Ray is getting heat for expressing what many must be feeling... His choice of words was not accurate, but seriously, hasn't this group bent over backwards for you?

If it was anyone else, I think the group would have gone "digital" long ago!

It was unprofessional of you to attack anothers work like you did and it was probably unnecessary for you to toot your own horn, (that IS a lot of musuems! But do you think they would not have collected your work if it had been done on Brovira?!!)

It is natural for people to question why this has drawn on so long with no end in sight.

I did not read every post by Ray, but iI think he is just frustrated.

A few sentences of heartfelt truth that contained "the rest of the story", would have soothed his soul... in my honest opinion.

FWIW

A different drummer...

 

[wilsonneal]

I was surprised by the length and tone of Michael Smith's rant/screed. It seems that for someone too busy doing 'real' photography to stop by often, he had a lot of pent up steam to vent on Ray. I think the personal attack on Ray's images was unwarranted. I just thought the whole response was kind of immature and self-important.

If the paper ever becomes available, I'll try a package. If it doesn't, I'm not losing any sleep over it. Today, I'm packing my 8x10 gear and shooting for a week on Cape Cod. Too much time in front of the monitor is toxic.

Neal

 

[David Brown]

:munch:

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Apologies for my rant, although when attacked, as several friends had pointed out to me in emails, I do get frustrated with just taking it in silence.

To answer the last group of questions. The "Chinese" Amidol. Yes, as you all will recall that did take at least two years--just to get a chemical. In that context, it has not taken so long to get the paper, which we do expect relatively soon.

Yes, we tested the Amidol and it was fine. It did not have the blackness that the final batch had. I had suggested, no, basically commanded, the fellow who was working on the Amidol purchase that after the testing we did, that he should go to China, and test some of the Amidol right from the container that was to be shipped. I had arranged an available darkroom for him through Chinese friends of mine who are large-format photographers and who were willing to go to the plant where the Amidol was made so they could translate for him. But he never did that. If I had been making the bulk purchase, that is what I would have done.

The Brett Weston books (even though they do not belong in this thread): We are working on printing four books a year. With any luck we will print two in early September and have the first one shipped at the beginning of November. At least that is the plan. Notwithstanding the timing of the next print run, after the next printing, we will have four books a year.

Tests of the new paper. At this time, for a number of reasons, which I will reveal at some point when I write about the story of bring this paper to market, I cannot discuss the tests that have been done, the results, what remains. Sample prints would be possible. But with jpgs looked at on the web you would not be able to tell any difference between the Lodima paper and Azo.

Now on to Ray Roger’s questions:

Are you perhps overlooking your skill as a photographer and printer?

Yes, to some extent. Although whenever I try to print on an enlarging paper, it takes three times as long to make a print and the results are never as fine.

Where is your Lodima project? Getting close to completion.

What is taking so long? That I cannot discuss.

Are you trying to do it yourselves, from the paid information you got? No, we are certainly not trying to do this ourselves. Paid information? Not sure what you mean here.

Have you ever disclosed who is working on it? No.

Or what country is is taking place in? I cannot say. But it is a European country.

If not, What is the logic behind the secrecy? I cannot say. You do not benefit by not knowing.

(How do we benefit by not knowing?) We do not benefit by keeping this secretive. But we cannot reveal more information.

I think Ray is getting heat for expressing what many must be feeling... His choice of words was not accurate, but seriously, hasn't this group bent over backwards for you?

Has this group "bent over backwards"? Many have been very supportive, and for that I am most appreciative. It is those nasty negative folks that do get under my skin. It seems that some people just get off on being negative. There are not many of them, but they are aggravating.

If it was anyone else, I think the group would have gone "digital" long ago! I guess that is an expression of confidence.

It was unprofessional of you to attack anothers work like you did and it was probably unnecessary for you to toot your own horn, (that IS a lot of musuems! But do you think they would not have collected your work if it had been done on Brovira?!!)

I agree with you here. As I said, it just got to me. Consider it a breaking point. Paula and I have a lot of our own time and a lot of our own money (all of it borrowed and needed to be repaid) and we are busting our asses to get this new paper made. Unfortunately, we do not have tens of millions of dollars to buy or build a coating facility ourselves, or we would have done it that way. Working with others who say, "Paper for testing will be here in x months," and then it doesn't arrive for 5x months later is frustrating, and is entirely beyond our control.

It is natural for people to question why this has drawn on so long with no end in sight.

Sure it is, and I do not mind questions. It is the negative, nasty, personal attacks that got to me) "people being duped"," misleading, ill-informed," etc. We are more frustrated than anyone that it has taken so long.

Michael A. Smith

 

[Ole]

... In music, look at Bach and Mozart, to take just two examples of artists who worked with one material, technique, and genre. "Misleading, illformed and artistically restrictive." I don't think so. ...

"One material, technique, and genre"??? Bach and Mozart????

Talk about "Misleading and illformed" - not to mention ill informed!

 

[Dinesh]

... (ah, I looked him up, he is a photographer, although I can understand by looking at his photographs why he is so negative and bitter),...

That was totally inappropriate!